| ConservagameR said: Having a lack of guns doesn't mean you won't have school shootings, mass killings, or reduced crime. |
No one claims it will stop any of it. But it will reduce it, that is the evidence we have thus far.
Reducing all crime is obviously a rubbish argument. That would be like saying... Unless we can get rid of -all- drugs, we shouldn't have drug laws at all.. Lets just flood the market with more crack/cocaine.. Lets push them into schools too while we are at it.
Japan for example, has strict gun control and have very minimal gun violence.
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00178/
Australia is the shining example of where strict gun control had a very positive effect, we haven't had a school shooting since we enacted it.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
| ConservagameR said: Many hadn't been invaded, until they were. How many nations have been chomping at the bit to take a shot at Australia? |
Australia logistically cannot be invaded, it's why the Japanese never managed to do it... And then the USA eventually entered the war.
The continent is just far too inhospitable and vast.
| ConservagameR said: Canada hasn't had nukes since the 1980's, but that doesn't mean jack because the US is right next door. |
Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and often engage in skirmishes with each other.
Having the biggest stick means stuff all.
But if you removed those sticks, then the damage they can do to each other gets lessened.
| ConservagameR said: I wonder if Iraq really did have WMD's, would Bush have pulled the trigger and invaded? Why isn't Ukraine flooded with US soldiers right now? |
You can question it all you want, but the public campaign for that war was based around weapons of mass destruction.
Why isn't Ukraine flooded with US soldiers? It's getting allot of financial and material support from the entire planet, people (Americans included) are also heading over there to volunteer in the war effort, my name was put down in order to assist in fire and rescue as I am one of a handful of USAR technicians in Australia if the need arose.
I guess the general consensus is to prepare and support the NATO countries in the region first and then judge the sentiment of the people, I don't think people really wish to invest in another war if they can avoid it.
Russia is essentially a rogue state on the world stage now, they could use a Nuke for any number of reasons, just the sanctions would be enough if they felt the need.
| ConservagameR said: I also pointed out to Cobretti prior, that the point isn't nukes. It's the mindset of not caring enough about defense. It's not like the USA goes a little overboard, while Ukraine, right next to Russia, clearly doesn't do enough to protect itself. |
Ukraine most certainly did care about defense, they had conscription... And they proposed to increase their military force massively.
They even set-up volunteer units at one point, but later absorbed them into the military itself.
The fact is, Ukraine anticipated an incursion by Russia for decades, Russia has multiples larger population and military force.
But what Ukraine was doing was building "ties" to European and International countries and organizations, to build those bilateral relationships... And eventually join the EU or NATO or both, mutual defense.
But before that, they were selling Enriched Uranium to the USA.
| ConservagameR said: Everyone has to make their decisions and live with the inevitable downsides. The hope is that the upside far far outweighs those downsides, whatever they may be. |
Life comes first. Everything else is absolutely secondary to that goal.
| Cobretti2 said: i think he is trying to say people who have the bigger guns don't get fucked with, people who have no guns get fucked. Which I think connects to his earlier posts, he wants more guns in schools to deter people from doing school shootings. |
How many times in the USA has a child managed to get a hold of a gun from their parents because it wasn't secured appropriately or just hidden under a pillow and killed themselves?
According to this, that's almost 1,300 children under the age of 18 that have accidentally killed themselves or another kid.
https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/research/areas-of-research/center-for-injury-research-and-policy/injury-topics/general/gun-safety
The answer shouldn't be to push more guns around Children for more of these accidents to occur, we should have less guns around children, less guns in society.
Ideally you would like to reach a point where a kid never has to see violence, death or guns... Like in Australia.
Because I am intimately familiar on what dealing with dead people can do to people, even to kids, they shouldn't be exposed to any of it, period.
| Chrkeller said: Another mass shooting last night. I think that is the 7th since this thread started.. and people think we don't have an gun access problem. |
It's also a large cultural issue, the right to bear arms seems to be more important than the lives of children, absolutely backwards.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
